This is the fourth issue of The Regulus magazine created by students at the University of St Andrews. This issue was released in November 2012, to coincide with the US presidential election.

3. TheCommitteeEditorial
COVER PAGE: CARTOON BY Nathan Jones
It is with great pleasure that we publish the fourth issue of
The Regulus Magazine. Founded in 2009 by Ben Shaps, and later
nurtured under the tutelage of Chief Editors Luke Bentham and Elin
James-Jones, this magazine has grown to become a pillar of the
vibrant political discourse here in St Andrews. I hope to continue
this tradition, and expand the reach of our magazine. It has been a
tumultuous period in the life of this publication, with the graduation of
many of the writing staff and the vast majority of our committee. The
Regulus has been undeterred, however. The team that I have assem-
bled, along with mainstays Kurt Jose, Deborah Marber, and Ben Shaps, has produced
something of real quality. We now boast an active website at theregulus.co.uk, and as
such are able to represent a greater diversity of student views than ever before. For
this issue, we have also doubled our production run to 2000 copies—as always, free of
charge—possible thanks to the valiant efforts of our sponsorship team.
This issue has come out to coincide with the US election, because we believe that—for
better of for worse—the outcome has broad geopolitical implications. However, we have
not limited ourselves to American politics. This issue offers compelling commentary on a
diverse array of pressing current topics; and in keeping with our commitment to neutral-
ity where possible, we have given space to multiple political perspectives. In a time when
the publication of a video criticizing the Muslim faith has led many to call for a restric-
tion of freedom of speech, we retain an unshakeable commitment to the inalienable right
of individuals and the press to express controversial political views. As St Andrews’ only
independent political magazine, in a town of a truly cosmopolitan makeup, we find our-
selves well placed to offer strong commentary on local and international issues.
I would like to thank everyone who made this issue possible, including our contributors,
our sponsorship team, our peerless editors, and our design team. New contributors are
always welcome: please, do not hesitate to contact us at
theregulusmagazine@gmail.com, or any of our editors via our website. If you wish to
comment on any of our articles and content, send an email to
editor@theregulus.co.uk and we will publish some of your replies in the next issue.
Nic Carter
Editor in Chief
Chief Editor: Nic Carter
Managing Editor: Nora Backer Malm
International Affairs Editor: Allen Farrington
Domestic Editor: Michael Cotterill
Head of sponsorship: Kurt V. Jose
Sponsorship officers: Angelina Magal and Lindsey Ayotte
Graphic Design: Deborah Marber
And a special thanks to all of our talented writers and artists.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in this publication do not reflect in any way the views of
The Regulus Magazine, the University of St Andrews, or any of its affiliates.

4. Table of Contents
CultureFeatures
Domestic
Polititics
Foreign
Affairs
‘Scotland, Britain and Three Hundred years of shared
blood, sweat and toil’
Scottish Independence - A pragmatic response
Scottish Independence - The internationalist perspective
The Romney Doctrine
Obama’s Foreign Policy: A retrospective
Working Towards a Multi-Speed Europe
Kenya’s Violent elections: a preventable storm
Unrest in Yemen
Paraguay’s antidemocratic suspension from
MERCOSUR
Robots in the Field; an Industrial Revolution of
Warfare?
House of Lords Reform, A Neglected Crusade
Aviation: the new (old) battleground for the Economy
Ecotourism: Green-washing or the future of ethical con-
sumerism?
Blackface or artistic homage? The Story of Die
Antwood
p.5
p.6
p.7
p.8
p.9
p.10
p.13
p.14
p.15
p.16
p.16
p.17
p.18
p.19

5. 5The Regulus
FEATURES
Economic debate over the possible
circumstances of an independent
Scotland have dominated the headlines and
sadly form about the only grounds for the
public’s views over the issue. I contend
that the mere economic issues have been
given too much primacy in the debate,
while our collective heritage has been
ignored. ‘Scotland, Britain and 300 years
of shared blood, sweat and toil’ is my basis
for why Scotland should remain part of the
UK, a reason that has been largely absent
from the narratives circulating in the press
and the British public thus far.
I generally have little deference towards
nationalism as a concept: I feel that it
is outdated, has often been abused and
manipulated to something that does not
necessarily reflect the public’s view, and
has therefore proved a dangerous political
tool. Such resurgent Scottish nationalism
entails a position that is wholly irrelevant
in modern Britain and in so doing, seems
to downplay Scotland’s shared history,
culture, and national heritage throughout
its three hundred years of Union with
England.
The 18th Century Scottish enlighten-
ment produced some of the greatest sci-
entific and intellectual minds to grace the
history books and was vital to the progres-
sion of the industrial revolution and Brit-
ain’s unrivalled international prestige and
power throughout the ages. Figures such as
Adam Smith, David Hume, James Watts,
Alexander Graham Bell and many others
have cemented Scotland’s place in Britain
and the world as a centre of industry and
intellectual development. The expansion
of Britain’s overseas Empire, for better or
worse, also involved a heavy contribution
from the Scottish. A large part of the East
India Company had Scottish personnel,
as did (and still does) a large percentage
of Britain’s armed forces, making Scots a
permanent presence in every war fought
by Britain from the Napoleonic wars to the
current war in Afghanistan. Domestically
the Scottish have always had a huge role to
play in British domestic politics from the
start. To list a few examples, the former
prime minister was Scottish, the Prime
minister before him was Scottish born and
bred, and, if we are to be very pedantic, the
current Prime Minister has noble Scottish
heritage. There have even been various
Scottish monarchs such as Mary Queen of
Scots, James VI and the rest of the house
of Stuarts. All in all, Scots have long held
significant positions in all sections of Brit-
ish society and continue to do so.
Given the amount of Scottish influ-
ence in shaping the image and physical-
ity of Britain, it is therefore difficult to
understand how the nationalist movement
attempts to shrug off and vilify what it
has actively and enthusiastically helped to
build. This characterization of the English
as a foreign invader still seems to be preva-
lent in current political thought. The fact
that the 2014 referendum is being hailed as
marking the 700th Anniversary for Robert
the Bruce’s victory over the English at
Bannockburn seems to me a petty attempt
to bring back the outdated view of Scottish
subjugation under the seemingly tyrannical
English.
Not only is it unhealthy to harbour such
resentment after 700 years but if we are to
bring matters of history into the mix, then
it is factually wrong to cast Mediaeval
and early modern England and Wales as
being as an autocratic and repressive nation
throughout its history with Scotland (the
days of William Wallace put aside). Scot-
land was after all a formidable opponent
with a highly trained army, which had at
one point invaded England as far south as
Derby during the Wars of the Three King-
doms. In short, historical grudges are not
a progressive means by which to ensure a
political agenda. With history as our guide,
it’s clear that historical grudges have led to
nothing more than xenophobia and an un-
justified contention amongst a population.
Furthermore, not only is it unchari-
table to consider England an age-old foe,
but also misleading to class our southern
neighbour as an executive autocrat. Popular
as it may be to advocate Scottish self-
determination and identity, it is difficult to
justify this basis considering the amount
of shared political heritage throughout the
UK. British society is such now that one
country cannot be considered so distinct
from one another politically and economi-
cally, considering the centuries of political
agenda enforced and passed in Parliament
by politicians from all over the UK. The
whole of Britain is in the same boat, and
Scotland is no worse off, even now when
times are hard. In many respects the aver-
age Scot probably has greater economic
and social freedom than that of any other
Britain. Does the Scottish parliament after
all not get to set its own taxes separate
from London? And is it not only English
and Welsh Students who now have to pay
the increased £9000 to attend a Scottish
University, compared to the free tuition
experienced by Scottish and EU students?
Lost among the many narratives and
sensationalism has been the likely effect
of independence not on Scotland but the
entirety of Britain. Scotland currently has
a voting population of 4 million people,
some of whom won’t vote and many of
whom will vote the other way, which
leaves those voting for independence
down to a few million at the maximum.
With the rest of Britain currently unable to
vote in the referendum, how is it justifiable
to allow around 4-5% of the overall UK
population to decide the future economic
consequences for over 60 million people?
To lose Scotland therefore would be
like losing a vital limb from the body:
As time goes by then you may be able to
adapt but the wound will always be there.
Provocative political debate aside, I’m a
firm believer of Scotland’s invaluable con-
tribution to the creation of Britain. Britain
was not created by a single historical
figure or by a single nation but to use the
term once more, 'three hundred years of
shared blood, sweat and toil’, and Scotland
has given so much of all of that. It would
therefore be a shame for Scotland to leave
and forget a creation for which it played
such a vital part in building.
‘Scotland, Britain and Three Hundred years of shared blood,
sweat and toil’.
Edmund Bennett
“To lose Scotland therefore would
be like losing a vital limb from
the body.”
s

6. The Regulus6
FEATURES
It can certainly be tempting to roman-
ticise the prospect of Independence.,
either by evoking tales of revolutionary
overthrow or eulogizing Wilsonian self-
determination. While the Arab Spring
has shown that the global community has
not holistically advanced beyond holding
these principles as sometimes necessary
and always rightful, we must consider
in our own particular situation the real
motivation. The Scottish people are not
oppressed by their remote rulers, nor are
they suffering from inadequate repre-
sentation in the bodies of supranational
organisations.
Rather, the question of independence
must be of primarily pragmatic consid-
eration; will the average Scottish citizen
directly and obviously benefit from the
proposed restructuring of their govern-
ment? I will present two generalised
pragmatic concerns—the lessened benefit
to the Scottish people on account of a
weaker representation on the global stage,
and the unnecessary disruption of the pro-
cess of secession itself—neither of which
I believe can be answered by an appeal to
idealism.
Under the proposals I criticise, the
sovereignty gained by secession from
the Union would then immediately be
returned by an application for entry into
the European Union, which would surely
be granted. And thus while it might seem
that a true fruition of the principles of
self-determination could be realised only
by rejecting the executive and legisla-
tive power of external organisations, we
instead must question whether the Scottish
people will benefit more greatly from
membership of the EU as an independent
nation rather than as a constituency of the
United Kingdom.
The answer is clearly that they will not.
While we might be tempted to consider it
beneficial to have democratic equivalence
within the institutional framework of the
EU, we would do well to recall the fact
that the EU is fundamentally undemo-
cratic, and is primarily sensitive to the
contemporary balance of economic power.
Consider some recent arbitrary and
perhaps autocratic bureaucratic moves by
the EU. The Czech Nuclear power station
in Dukovany was forcibly closed by the
EU over the violation of an obscure 1994
rule on the importing of Russian-enriched
uranium. Consider the fines levied against
the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovenia
and Poland, also this past month, imposed
essentially for exercising their sovereign
rights to manage their respective defence
industries. Consider the excessive fining
of Hungary for failing to keep their deficit
under 3% of GDP. The UK has a deficit of
7.7%; France of 5.2%.
It is difficult to imagine heavyweight
countries such as the United Kingdom,
France or Germany bowing to the EU’s
capricious and whimsical demands, in the
way that the Czech Republic, the Nether-
lands, Slovenia et al. do. Hence we must
acknowledge that while an independent
Scotland would certainly have the best
interests of the Scottish people at heart, it
is questionable whether it would have any
meaningful power to protect them. In gen-
eral cases of horrific mismanagement, such
as the Common Agricultural Policy, and
especially in those areas such as fishing, a
major Scottish industry, it would seem that
independent representation would increase
our vulnerability to a far greater extent than
it would our authority.
Similar problems would arise in
involvement with individual nations.
Scotland has, by definition, less to offer
foreign countries in the way of treaties on
defence, trade—indeed every business of
government—than the United Kingdom as
a whole. It is decidedly unclear how Scot-
tish commercial interests, whether on the
part of consumers, exporters, or employees
of foreign investors, will benefit from an
independent Scotland’s significantly dimin-
ished power to negotiate favourable terms
with foreign counterparts on their behalf.
The only recourse in this case would be to
demonstrate that the policy of the United
Kingdom is actively harmful to Scotland,
an allegation that has proved a logical
chimera thus far.
The likelihood of Scotland, England and
Wales enjoying a more fruitful relationship
is also far from certain. A proper exposition
of the fallacy reveals a potentially serious
problem; namely, that the legal mechanism
for determining disagreements between
the governments would vanish entirely.
This would leave no judicial procedure for
settling disputes. If an antiquated political
union is the cause of grievance under the
current system, there is no reason to expect
independence to have any effect other than
to remove the only method of practical
dispute mediation.
Scotland’s economic prospects represent
a topic of equally spurious extolment. Re-
cent estimates propose a £4.5 billion grant
by virtue of the Barnet formula, which
will disappear in the case of independence.
Similarly, Scotland’s supposedly bountiful
potential for renewable energy is totally
unsustainable on a commercial level, and
is currently underpinned by funding that is
ultimately derived from the UK budget.
Having established the questionable
benefit of independence, we must also
examine of the process of secession itself.
Whilst the majority of public services in
Scotland are controlled either partly or en-
tirely by the Scottish Government, National
Defence and Scotland’s representation in
Foreign Affairs are entirely the domain of
Westminster.
Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal
United Services Institute, best summarises
the difficulties of establishing a new
defence arrangement; “Significant one-
off costs will be involved in building new
infrastructure, and in moving people and
equipment. There will be heated arguments
over who should pay for the extra costs
that the UK will incur as a result of Scot-
tish secession ... In these circumstances,
it would not be realistic for Scotland’s
Defence Forces to expect an annual budget
of more than around £2 billion. This would
leave it with a defence budget that was
significantly less than those of neighbours
such as Denmark and Norway, even as
it faced demands for new investments to
fill gaps left by the break-up of the UK’s
armed forces.”
While there are a great deal of excel-
lent theoretical arguments in favour of
independence, the supposed right to self-
determination and a sophomoric desire
for international influence are not among
them. We are not contemplating revolu-
tion, nor decrying the inadequate rule of a
foreign power. Considering the necessarily
pragmatic nature of this debate, I do not
believe the evidence is strong enough to
merit so monumental a reconstitution of
government.
Scottish Independence – A Pragmatic Response
CartoonbySchrankfromTheIndependent
Allen Farrington
“I do not believe the
evidence is strong enough
to merit so monumental
a reconstitution of
government.”

7. 7The Regulus
FEATURES
Upon its establishment, the United
Nations comprised 51 independent
nations. Today that figure has risen to
almost 200. Recent years have witnessed
a rapid increase in the number of indepen-
dent nations, particularly small ones. The
days of empire building and aggressive
colonial expansion are long gone. We are
contemporaries to a new age of globali-
sation, of independent nations working
together on equal terms towards interna-
tional peace and security.
The increasing and enduring role of
such supranational organisations as the
United Nations, the European Union and
the World Trade Organisation has effected
a decisive shift away from only the largest
and most powerful having a voice on the
global stage. Small nations have benefited
most from this new international settle-
ment, whose result it has been to eliminate
the need for small nations to surrender
themselves to bigger powers for hope of
survival in terms of trade, politics and
defence. In this context, all of the benefits
once afforded to Scotland by the 1707
Treaty of Union vanished with the incep-
tion of the modern age. If the Union ben-
efited Scotland in the days of the Empire,
is there any case for it when the Empire no
longer exists?
At a time when many small European
nations are flourishing under indepen-
dence, Scotland urgently needs to take on
responsibility for all of its own affairs and
complete the process of democratic em-
powerment that began with the devolved
Scottish Parliament in 1999.
An independent Scotland would take up
full membership of international organisa-
tions and ensure that the distinct interests
and values of Scotland are represented
in the world. At the moment, these are
neglected in favour of those of the UK as
a whole, where Scotland accounts for less
than 10% of the population.
Scotland is home to more than 70% of
the UK fishing fleet and 90% of its fish
farming. Issues like fishing and agricul-
ture, which are of vital importance to
Scotland, if not to the UK as a whole, are
currently subject to EU agreements in
which Scotland has no say. Scotland has
no right to send ministers to EU Council
of Ministers meetings and British minis-
ters in Brussels naturally put the interests
of the UK before those of Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament taking control
over all of Scotland’s affairs is essential to
ensure that Scotland is fully represented in
Europe and that it has a voice and a vote in
the all-important Council of Ministers.
A fully autonomous Scottish Parlia-
ment would furthermore have the ability
to makes its own decisions on defence. In
2007 an overwhelming majority of MSPs
voted against the renewal of the UK’s
nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This
vote reflected equally overwhelming op-
position from the Scottish public. However
since defence remains a matter reserved
to the UK Parliament in London -in which
Scotland makes up only a tiny minority—
the UK Government can ignore the will of
the people and station their nuclear-armed
submarine fleet just outside of Glasgow,
Scotland’s largest and most densely popu-
lated city. This is a situation that would be
unthinkable—not to mention illegal—if
Scotland were independent.
Scotland’s glorious landscape has been
blessed with natural wealth incomparable
with other areas of the UK and unparalleled
throughout Europe. Scotland has limit-
less potential in renewable energy: 25% of
Europe’s tidal power, 25% of its offshore
wind resource, and 10% of its wave
resource. The Scottish Government passed
world-leading climate change legislation in
2009, yet (not being an independent nation)
could take no part in the Global Climate
Change Summit that year.
Independence would allow Scotland to
take up its place in the global community
and play a positive and constructive role in
tackling problems such as climate change,
war and poverty.
An independent Scottish Parliament
would also take on responsibility for rais-
ing and spending all of its own money,
with the ability to tailor economic policy
to Scotland’s specific needs and make
the most of our nation's distinct assets. A
glance at the 6 richest countries in the EU
demonstrates how in the modern age small
is beautiful.
The economy of Scotland is even now
in a consistently stronger position than that
of the UK as a whole. A fiscally autono-
mous Scotland with its population of 5.2
million is predicted to have a lower budget
deficit than the UK as a whole and to be
ranked 6th in the OECD in terms of GDP
per head, compared to the UK's sixteenth
place (2010).
Lastly, an independent Scotland would
have a stronger and better relationship
with the rest of the UK. The grievances
of an antiquated political union would be
removed and a partnership of equals in a
social union would take its place, working
together where we agree, and making our
own decisions where we don’t.
And there is nobody better placed to
take decisions about Scotland than the
people of Scotland. A Westminster Govern-
ment in London cannot, and will not ever,
have the interests of Scotland as their sole
and first priority, a Scottish Government in
Edinburgh can and does. We do not think it
strange that the people of France run their
own affairs, and we would not expect the
people of Denmark to have another nation
make decisions for them.
A vote for independence in 2014 is a
vote for normal nationhood. It is a vote ex-
pressing the desire to take on responsibility
for our own affairs and make our own deci-
sions in the same way that other countries
do; a responsibility that would best serve
the interests of the people of Scotland, both
domestically and internationally, and a
responsibility that is entirely natural in the
modern global community of nations.
As Winnie Ewing (‘Madame Ecosse’)
famously said:“Stop the world, Scotland
wants to get on!”
Scottish Independence - The Internationalist Perspective
Luxembourg 58,900 0.5
Ireland 32, 600 4.2
Netherlands 29,500 16.3
Austria 328,900 8.3
Denmark 28,600 5.4
Belgium 27,700 10.5
GDP Population
(millions)per head
Ashley Husband Powton

8. The Regulus8
FEATURES
Two months ago, when it still seemed
that the only real issue in the bid for the
American presidency was the economy, Mitt
Romney and his advisers would much have
preferred to underscore the former business-
man’s savoir-faire for entrepreneurship and
private sector stimulation. But given the re-
cent heightening of tensions in regions in the
Taiwan Straits and the Middle East over the
past weeks, Gov. Romney has much reason
to energize his foreign policy agenda, which
distinguishes him from Obama’s “Mr. Nice
Guy” policy.
NoAmerican head of state since the end of
WW2 can pass on the common presidential
protocol of espousingAmerica’s preeminence,
but some understand the responsibilities of
international leadership better than others. Mr.
Obama’s assessment of what path is best for
the United States is not dishonest; it’s just na-
ïve. The proposition that the international sys-
tem’s normative superpower should diminish
its presence in vital regions of the world dur-
ing a time of increasing hazards was always
an unsound tactic. But Mr. Obama continues
to operate as though the decline ofAmerica
is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the consequence
of which has been a foreign policy of mixed
signals, ambivalence, and unpredictability.
To the passing listener, Mr. Romney’s
call for another “American century” may
evoke the same sort of self-righteousness
that disastrously plunged the US into Iraq
in 2003.Amore nuanced consideration of
the former governor’s concepts for foreign
policy, however, reveals that his ideas do
not entail this sort of blunt unilateralism.
Perhaps it is therefore necessary to debunk
the apprehensions of (a return to)American
quasi-imperialism that usually arise any time a
US politician propounds a strongerAmerican
presence abroad. It would be deeply mis-
guided to think that Romney’s solicitation for
greaterAmerican ubiquity in the world neces-
sarily engenders a policy where the United
States forces its democratic values down other
countries’throats.
Mr. Romney has repeatedly stated his sup-
port for bilateral solutions to critical situations.
Take Syria. Since the beginning of the conflict
in March 2011, observing the trend of political
upheaval that had already wrought Egypt and
Libya, Gov. Romney averred the importance
of congregating with regional partners such
as Jordan and Turkey to come up with an
approach tailored to the regional political and
social landscape. The Obama administration,
on the other hand, has been unwilling to offer
a more targeted and substantive solution to the
tumultuous civil situation still raging in the
country.
One can’t say that the president was
completely idle on the matter of Syria. The
Russian and Chinese veto of the proposed UN
Security Council Resolution hemmed what
was indeed a US-backed initiative, but if the
sort of disproportionate nonconformity that
Russia and China displayed is to be the sole
infringement onAmerican resolve in these
sorts of crises, then this administration is fall-
ing short of its moral commitment to stability
in the Middle East.
There are other ways to address threats
such as the one posed by Bashar al-Assad’s
despotic regime.Although it is appreciable
that President Obama has deemed the UN
his preferred forum for international conflict
resolution, a global superpower like the
US must venture to utilize its far-reaching
influence to conjure up local partners as an
alternate method of dealing with regional
conflicts when the UN channel is blocked.
That is something Gov. Romney understands
better than the president, but Republicans
unfortunately risk being branded narcissists
for their disavowal of UN preeminence. The
UN should not be disregarded, but it should
also not be the be-all-and-end-all to conflict
resolution. In the case of Syria the current ad-
ministration opted to wait through more than a
year of bloodshed and bedlam before realizing
that the UN was not offering substantive
solutions. No less than fifteen months after
the civil unrest in Syria began, Sec. of State
Hillary Clinton traveled to Turkey in order to
establish a “working group” which was more
a token gesture intended to assuage the critics
than a substantive solution.
With the memory of Iraq still fresh in the
minds of many, another sweeping projection
ofAmerican military grandeur in the Middle
East as a solution to theAssad menace is
certainly discreditable. Romney’s campaign
has come to terms with that as well, though.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal,
Romney’s foreign policyAdvisor Rich Wil-
liamson stated that “it’s very difficult to do a
no-fly zone [in Syra] because, unlike in Libya,
the distribution of the rebel groups and the
government forces are more interspersed...”
He went on to suggest that the US should
have been more involved in identifying the
moderate opposition groups amongst the
rebels early on through targeted investment of
financial and intelligence assets.
Mr. Obama has showcased his unrivaled
dexterity in addressing big crowds on count-
less occasions. But individual sit-downs
with other state heads irk him. Perhaps that
explains why he was always quick to assure
press assemblies and other large gatherings
of the US’s commitment to preventing Iran
from acquiring nuclear arms, but suddenly
backtracking in an open-mic exchange with
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last
March. On the topic of missile defense sys-
tems in Eastern Europe aimed at intercepting
warheads from Iran (which Russia rejected,
seeing it as a threat to its national security) the
president was overheard telling his Russian
counterpart: “This is my last election.After
my election I have more flexibility.” What
exactly Obama meant by this statement has
been subject to much deliberation, but it
is not hard to see what Tehran made of the
president’s comment; namely that the US can
be dragooned into accommodating a nuclear
Iran.Alas, the government in Tehran contin-
ues to protract its “nuclear energy for civilian
means” charade with impunity.
One can’t help but then also ask whether
Japan’s paranoia over the recent Senkaku/
Diaoyu island dispute with China is because
Japan is less than assured ofAmerican com-
mitment to its democratic ally in the Far East.
And more worrying has beenAmerica’s fail-
ure to offset China’s disproportionate increase
in military arsenals directed at Taiwan. Taipei
has been a long-standing friend of the US that
has been relegated to seeming obsolescence
on Obama’sAsia agenda.America’s friends
abroad are wary of Washington’s fecklessness,
and the infallibility ofAmerican support has
become a very grey area in the US foreign
policy handbook. One can only hope that giv-
en Romney’s background in business, where
grooming personal relationships is imperative
to mutual understanding and cooperation, the
Republican nominee would be more apt in
allaying these enfeebled friendships.
Just recently, the governor’s business ethos
also revealed something about his visions
for foreign aid. In his speech at the Clinton
Global Initiative, he attested the pacify-
ing powers of free market policies in the
social struggles of theArab Spring, citing
the anecdote of a Tunisian fruit vendor who
resorted to self-immolation in response to
the pre-revolutionary government’s confisca-
tion of his valued weighing scales. Romney
correctly pointed out that the overwhelming
share of resources now flowing to developing
nations comes from private sector investment,
whereas traditional foreign aid has become
marginalized. He therefore proposed signing
“Prosperity Pacts” with nations that agreed to
remove barriers to free markets and vowed to
reorientAmerican assistance to “access the
transformative nature of free enterprise.”
Democracy is too nebulous a concept to
impose upon societies as intricately woven as
those often found in the world’s most unstable
regions. Iraq was a case in point, where the
Bush administration naively pursued a “one
size fits all” democratic solution. The gover-
nor, on the other hand, believes in the panacea
of free market enterprise, seeing it as a mutu-
ally beneficial institution. This may require
a more nuanced discussion, but in principle
the pursuit of global market integration is
certainly a more viable aim when it comes to
shaping outcomes abroad than both Bush’s
democratic universalism and especially
Obama’s turn inward.
If history has any educative merit, it is
worth remembering the last time the United
States turned inward following an economic
crisis. That was in the 30s, whenAmerica left
the world stage open to the forces of fascism
and Nazism. Granted, circumstances have
changed and paradigms have shifted, but
the world is far from devoid of malevolent
forces—nowadays they’re just guised dif-
ferently. It is too soon to say, but God forbid
that events such as the recent triumph of the
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are just the
first examples of destabilizing forces seizing
their chance in the void left by the absentee
American leadership.
The Romney
Doctrine
Colin Arestos

9. 9The Regulus
FEATURES
As the climactic November election
approaches, analysts on both sides of
the partisan line have begun scrutinizing
President Barack Obama’s foreign policy
record. Particular emphasis has been laid
on his international action, particularly with
regard to the Middle East. Often, Obama’s
diplomacy has been labelled a “success” or
a “failure” depending on political perspec-
tive as facts are obfuscated for partisan
gain. Nevertheless, if addressed on the basis
of results—either political gains achieved
by the United States or losses prevented—
Obama’s foreign policy during his first term
has proven to be reasonable, and, moreover,
a logical extension of the values and goals
which he expressly represents.
As is demanded of the Executive Of-
fice in the contemporary political climate,
the President’s foreign policy has focused
primarily on the Middle East, in particular
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Israel.
In Iraq, Obama inherited from his
predecessor a six-year, seemingly endless
conflict. Begun in 2003 over the question-
able and now infamous premises of con-
fiscating weapons of mass destruction, by
2008 the Iraq war had become a quagmire
draining U.S. finances, exacerbating the
incipient economic crisis and deteriorat-
ing U.S. credibility. One of Obama’s 2008
campaign platforms was to end the war, and
he committed himself to bringing the troops
home by 2011. He kept his promise, in ac-
cordance with a timeline set out before his
election. Moreover, Iraq has not collapsed
into sectarian chaos, as some predicted;
while Iraq is by no means stable, politics
has superseded violence in the resolution of
conflict, signifying a clear Obama foreign
policy success.
The tragedy of September 11th 2001
unleashed the United States against the
Taliban in Afghanistan, but efforts to quell
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were soon bogged
down in the “graveyard of empires”. By late
2009, Obama deemed it necessary to send
a “surge” of over 30,000 soldiers to alter
the stalemate between U.S. troops and the
Taliban. By 2010, the death toll of U.S.
soldiers had passed 1,000 and casual-
ties among the surge troops doubled that
number in less than two years. Though
Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary,
claimed that the surge “reduce[ed] Taliban
momentum on the battlefield,”, an increase
in “green-on-blue” or “insider” attacks—
those perpetrated by Afghan soldiers or
police against U.S. troops—weakens his
case. However, there is no doubt that the
removal of Osama bin Laden by US Spe-
cial Forces in Pakistan had wide-ranging
effects on the Al Qaeda terrorist network
in surrounding countries: most of all in
Afghanistan. Obama has committed to
withdraw all military forces from Afghani-
stan by 2014, and, with the recent recall
of surge troops, all appears to be going as
planned.
According to the National Security
Strategy laid out by the White House in
May of 2010, the Obama administration
has given Iran a “clear choice” between
meeting “its international obligations on
its nuclear program,” that is, stopping the
production of weapons-grade enriched
uranium or facing crippling sanctions. Iran
adamantly insists that its uranium will be
utilized for peaceful purposes. However,
considering Iran’s controversial history of
supporting terrorism, calling for Israel’s
destruction, and its recent unflagging
support of Syria’s murderous attacks on
its own citizens, the United States does
not feel it can take Iran on its word. The
Obama administration currently leads an
international effort to impose sanctions on
the Iranian regime, cutting off Iranian oil
from world markets, the Iranian bank-
ing system from the global economy, and
Iranian commerce from many international
partners. Popular discontent with the
“characteristically offensive” Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad is rising. The sanctions have
served to push Iran into an isolated and
precarious position, such that its people are
vying for a regime change, and its leaders
calling for a “national referendum on the
nuclear program.” Not only has Obama’s
leadership mitigated the potential inter-
national threat of a weaponized Iran, but
it has set the stage for a possible regime
change: one that could manifest itself in
the 2013 elections, with the rumored bid of
pragmatic leader Akbar Hashemi Rafsan-
jani.
During President Obama’s famous
2009 Cairo speech, he affirmed that, “The
United States does not accept the legiti-
macy of continued Israeli settlements. This
construction violates previous agreements
and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It
is time for these settlements to stop.” The
Arab world took notice and expected a se-
rious U.S. effort to halt settlement expan-
sion activity. In August of 2010, Obama,
along with Secretary of State Hillary Clin-
ton, began to broker peace talks between
Israel and Palestine, inviting Israeli Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Presi-
dent of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud
Abbas to Washington with the “insistence
that a comprehensive peace deal can be
reached within 12 months.” With a mora-
torium on Israeli construction in the West
Bank temporarily in place, Abbas and Ne-
tanyahu approached the negotiating table
with clear red lines: Abbas insisted on the
extension of the settlement moratorium,
while Netanyahu would not consider it.
Nevertheless, the sentiment about the reig-
nited peace process was positive; observers
hoped that Obama would “overcome the
peace-process fatigue from which both
Israelis and Palestinians suffer.” Unfor-
tunately, the irreconcilable demands of
both the Israelis and Palestinians as well
as the inability of Abbas to control the
Gaza Strip, which is under Hamas control,
scuttled the peace talks. Obama’s goal of
facilitating a two-state solution along 1967
lines failed due to the intransigence of
both parties. The resulting disappointment
over this unbreakable impasse resulted in
the resignation of Obama’s envoy to the
Middle East, George Mitchell, in May of
2011. In a speech to the United Nations
some months later, Obama emphasized the
United States’ friendship with Israel and
the United States’ enduring commitment
to reaching a compromise in the Middle
East which ensures the establishment of an
autonomous Palestinian state: “America's
commitment to Israel's security is unshake-
able…Israel deserves recognition…Israel
must recognize the need to pursue a two
state solution with a secure Israel next to
an independent Palestine.” Obama set up
a structure for reaching peace and thus
managed to revive what had been a stalled
peace process. Though no finalized agree-
ment was made in 2010, the guidance of
the United States in that year catalyzed an
ongoing series of attempts by Palestinian
and Israeli leaders to reach a compromise,
unmediated by the United States for, as
Obama stated to the UN, “Ultimately, it is
Israelis and Palestinians who must live side
by side.”
Obama has, in his Middle Eastern for-
eign policies, represented his ideals, kept
his promises, and generally contributed to
an improvement in the hostile politics of
the Middle East – an area that forms the
fulcrum of U.S. foreign policy.
IllustrationbyTobyMarsh
Obama’s Foreign Policy: a retrospective
Tamar Ziff

10. The Regulus10
DOMESTIC Politics
On the first day back after the sum-
mer recess, a depressed Nick Clegg
rose in the House of Commons, forlorn
with despair, to solemnly announce that
proposals to legislate for a reformed House
of Lords have been scrapped indefinitely
for the Coalition’s lifetime. One of the key
pledges of the Liberal Democrat manifesto
has been brutally kicked into the quagmire
of long grass. The Coalition has retracted
from the task of transforming the Lords
from an archaic relic into a respected,
professionalised, representative, debating
chamber.
The campaign for Lords reform was
stagnated by the 91 Conservative MPs who
voted against the proposals at the bill’s
Second Reading in the House of Com-
mons. This reveals the extent to which
Lords reform embodies the dynamics of
coalition administration and it accentu-
ates the divulgence of values and priori-
ties concerning constitutional reform. It
is axiomatically the most emblematic
disagreement between the Coalition parties
thus far. It embodies a battle between the
bearers of the flame of progress against
the recalcitrant custodians of an outdated
constitution. The consequences of this
divulgence of opinion will have a pivotal
effect on how this Coalition will be re-
membered when posterity casts its verdict
upon the Coalition’s acting scene in the
continuum of history. Reform has faltered
and the 2010-2015 government has proven
to be a coalition that has failed the test of
implementation when reform was within
the grasp of our elected lawmakers. It
is essential that light is shone on Lords
reform because the issue is blinded by
misunderstanding and suffers the paralysa-
tion of inertia.
Firstly, I will enlighten the topic by
charting the infamous history of the Lords.
Secondly, I will proceed to categorise
some of the multitude of arguments in
favour of Lords reform. Thirdly, I will
attempt to contextualise the issue within
the politics of the present. For too long,
the deep injustices epitomised through the
composition of the House of Lords have
been allowed to continue without derision
or criticism. Progressively minded people
need to arouse their traditional reforming
spirit, which has been regrettably dormant
for far too long in British society. Only
when Lords reform reaches sufficient
momentum to become the zeitgeist of the
times will it be taken seriously by Parlia-
ment. Women were not harmoniously
presented with the vote by a benevolent
Parliament; on the contrary, suffragists
and suffragettes fought fervently for their
inalienable voting rights. Similarly, discon-
tent and exasperation regarding the injus-
tice of the current House of Lords need to
be expressed more voraciously before an
air of reform is once again blowing through
the corridors of power in Whitehall.
The House of Lords has from its infancy
played a decisive role in the political affairs
of the English nation. Its functional birth
contestably occurred with the signing of
the Magna Carta, which sought to restrain
the unruly effects of the unbridled power
of the tyrannical King John. The House of
Lords subsequently evolved into a revising
chamber where those who were ‘born to
rule’ delivered their verdicts on legislation
proposed by the Commons. Nevertheless,
the idea that hereditary peers possess uni-
versal knowledge through divine interven-
tion is unequivocally repellent to demo-
cratic sensibilities in twenty-first century
Britain. We live in an increasingly diverse
and multifaceted society, constantly sub-
jected to the ever-more-ferocious waves of
impounding globalisation rocking against
the shoreline of our once ‘sceptred isle’.
Unlike the patently romanticised world of
‘Downton Abbey’, modern Britons do not
display deferential reverence for the social
echelon of the high aristocracy. All aspects
of the media, the Establishment and the po-
litical class eagerly accentuate their fervent
yearning for a society where equality of op-
portunity reigns supreme.
Accordingly, the ever-reverential House
of Lords has, in recent times, endured
increasing and entirely comprehensible
hostility from the democratic Commons.
A principle whereby membership of a
parliamentary chamber is achieved through
the accident of birth, rather than dedicated
merit, is axiomatically abhorrent and an
unpardonable injustice to democratic sen-
sibilities. Thus far, the nadir of the House
of Lords came during the Liberal admin-
istration of 1905-1915 when the peers of
the realm greedily refused to sanction the
government’s 1909 Treasury budget bill
to pass through the Commons unscathed.
The prospect of the Lords being burdened
with an increased degree of taxation was
vile anathema to a House composed of
lordly nobles with vast estates continuing
a pseudo-feudal existence in the twentieth
century. Nevertheless, the tides of his-
tory were benevolently on the side of the
Liberals. With his eloquent and progressive
verbal powers of persuasion, Lloyd George
inflamed the consciences of the social
progressives by rallying against inherited
authority, which was exerting inordinate
influence at the expense of the people.
After years of fiercely contested debate, the
Commons prevailed with the welsh wizard
at the helm. The entailing Parliament Act
of 1911 removed the power of the Lords
to block or prorogue government bills
concerning the finances of the realm. The
legislation also restricted the power of the
Lords to only reject a Commons bill a total
of three times. After that, the Lords would
be overruled by the Commons. Regret-
tably however, this epoch of turbulence
did not last long and the contemporaneous
reforming zeal was succeeded by a century
of procrastination and indifference towards
the House of Lords.
Yet, one figure emerged from almost
a century of silence towards the issue
of Lords reform. Tony Blair was mag-
nanimously swept to power on an ocean
of goodwill; Britain had opted for a more
House of Lords Reform, a Neglected Crusade
“the idea that hereditary peers
possess universal knowledge
through divine intervention is
unequivocally repellent to demo-
cratic sensibilities in twenty-first
century Britain.”

11. 11The Regulus
DOMESTIC Politics
progressive political scene. At last, cam-
paigners believed that the House of Lords
would be cast into the dustbin of history, a
fate long overdue. Nevertheless, political
inertia and the absence of an impending
vision inhibited the institutionalisation of
a momentum sufficient enough to sweep
the concept of a thorough Lords reform
into practice. Presently, the Upper house is
a half-reformed, indefensible, anomalous
chamber, lacking in creditable legitimacy
and exemplifying the mockery that is Brit-
ish democracy. We have a House of Com-
mons elected through the vapid and dis-
creditable first-past-the-post system and an
unelected House of Lords. It is dangerously
and immensely hypocritical for Britain to
preach and argue for the dissemination of
genuine democracy throughout the world
when democracy is yet to be enmeshed in
Britain’s own constitutional fabric. The
only other nation-state that possesses a
hereditary chamber is Lesotho. This only
exacerbates the fact that Britain has stalled
on the path of progress and remains a relic
behind advanced nation states with an
upper chamber that can trace its roots and
composition back to the medieval era.
Indeed, at present, the fabric of the
House of Lords is composed of 816 peers
and, alarmingly, this titanic number lies
on a ceaselessly upward trajectory. Of this
colossal army of peers, 94 are still heredi-
tary. This plaguing prejudice is a scar on
Britain’s democratic heritage and must
be removed with all haste. It entrenches a
mockery of the assertion that Britain is the
home of the ‘mother of all parliaments’. It
was traditionally the case that the aristoc-
racy should possess a measure of power
because they engulfed the vast majority of
land ownership in Britain. Their argument
can no longer be accepted since the aris-
tocracy has profoundly diminished as an
economic force in British society. Allowing
a benighted aristocracy to hold power is
a disgusting act of constitutional vandal-
ism and should be condemned resolutely
by democratic forces in British society.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of peers are
appointed. Most are chosen by party lead-
ers to stand up for party political interests
in the Upper chamber. No qualification is
required other than absolute allegiance to
the party whip machine. This suffocating
system means that party political peers are
almost compelled to adhere to their party’s
high command because they are unaccount-
able to any other group. This lack of cred-
ibility severely reduces the analytical and
deliberating power of the Upper chamber
since free thinking about the advantages
and disadvantages of legislation is incon-
trovertibly discouraged.
Despite this, the House of Lords does
contain a commendable number of cross-
bench peers who have been raised to the
life peerage based on their merits in dif-
ferent fields of national life. This enables
the House of Lords to be enriched by the
wealth of wisdom and experience that
these individuals of merit can bring to the
debating chamber. Their contributions are
highly valued and the intentions of Lords
reformers to encompass cross-bench peers
should be applauded. It diversifies the fab-
ric of the Upper chamber and delivers an
in-built supremacy to the Commons, which
would satisfactorily consolidate the current
balance of power in Britain’s constitutional
structure. Conversely, the House of Lords
presently includes 26 Anglican Bishops.
This blatant favouritism disproportionately
echoes the interests of the Church of Eng-
land. It is beyond contention that England’s
national church no longer genuinely speaks
for the spiritual attitudes and well-being of
the entire nation. More and more people
are adopting atheistic or agnostic attitudes
towards religion. Furthermore, the rising
cosmopolitanism of the United Kingdom
means that other major religions should
deserve a degree of recognition, if Anglican
bishops remain embedded in the fabric of
the Upper chamber. To instil greater objec-
tivity and accountability into the proceed-
ings of the Lords, it would be advantageous
to remove the singularly religious element
of the chamber. This would avoid contro-
versy against preferential values and enable
ethical issues to be debated more rationally
without overt religious interference.
Moreover, a plethora of supplementary
arguments exist to convey the inherently
inequitable nature of the current House of
Lords. Its compositional structure is delete-
rious to a fair representation of the British
people. Half of its members originate
from the South East and London vicinity
whereas only 2.6% venture from the North-
East of England. This disparity of regional
equality inevitably induces resentment
and ensures that the Lords chamber cannot
voice national concerns in a dispassionate
manner. Its instincts and sympathies are
fixed to the advancement and consider-
ations of south-eastern and London affairs.
An overhaul of the Lords would result in
the trebling of the representation of the
East Midlands. It would ensure that politics
would be revitalised in areas that pres-
ently feel disenchanted from the perceived
distance of the political process from their
own regions. The current composition
of the House of Lords allows London to
continue as the unequivocal hub of power
whereas many regions are essentially
voiceless in one of the deciding chambers
of the parliamentary process. Similarly, this
problem encompasses the more youthful
sectors of British society. There are eight
times as many peers over the age of 90 than
peers under the age of 40. This cataclysmic
division is pernicious because it fails to
recognise the abundance of creativity that
younger generations can unleash into the
political mainstream. It is a societal fact
that older people are more conservative in
outlook and more prone to discard original
ideas in favour of more conventional ap-
proaches. It similarly contributes to the
ever-existent disenchantment with politics
as something that categorically disengages
young people. A democratic reform of the
Lords would eliminate this injustice and
allow a democratic revival to flow through
the corridors of political power. It would
allow constituents of a future ‘Lords’ to
feel as though they could exercise their
democratic voice to allow the second
chamber to truly re-consider and consoli-
date the issues of the day.
A common line of criticism runs that
Lords reform should be removed from
the government’s agenda because Britain
currently resides in an epoch of economic
difficulty and uncertainty. Apparently, it is
grossly inappropriate to deliberate on alter-
native issues because the collective creative
power of the Commons cannot stretch to
deliberating on two significant political
issues. This is incontrovertible nonsense,
fuelled by political corners inextricably op-
posed to Lords reform. It has eternally been
the case that MPs must debate multiple
issues in order to condone and pass the
administrative and governmental business
of the day. This very year has seen MPs
debate over elected police commissioners,
local government reform, legal aid reform
and an avalanche of other issues. Unfor-
tunately, this argument has a ring with the
public who feel that the government simply
is not doing enough to engender a strong
economic recovery. Yet, the closeted nature
of Westminster means that the public do
not realise how much activity is spent
debating peripheral issues that carry great
importance, yet do not concern economic
affairs. This tragic state of confusion needs
to be illustrated so that coterminous debat-
ing is not presented as incompetence or
indifference towards economic recovery.
Another fiercely propagated argument is
that institutionalising a degree of demo-
cratic legitimacy into the Lords would be a
mistake of apocalyptic proportions because
the supremacy of the Commons would be
overruled. It must be accentuated that this
is a terrifically dogmatic interpretation of
constitutional possibilities. It is indeed very
rare that second chambers in parliaments
should be absolved of democratic legitima-
cy. Britain is the abnormality in this field
and an infusion of elected members would
only enrich the vitality and energy of the
Lords because they would have to prove
their worth through accountability to the
people who elected them to office. Elected
representatives in the ‘Lords’ would
consolidate the purpose of the second
chamber as a revising institution. Currently,
the opinion of the Lords is cast aside if its
verdict is unfavourable to the will of the

12. The Regulus12
DOMESTIC Politics
Commons. The Lords can eventually be
overruled in their entirety. This renders
them obsolete, their scrutiny becomes
superfluous and they become devoured of
purpose. The only way to ensure that legis-
lation is properly deliberated on is to allow
the second chamber to have the power
to actually stop legislation that is deeply
controversial or resonantly unpopular with
the public. The ability of a second chamber
to significantly prorogue or halt obtrusive
legislation will allow its public standing to
rise to greater heights of respectability.
Furthermore, the assertion that Lords
reform is a uniquely Liberal Democratic
crusade must be addressed. Indeed, the
Liberal Democrats consider this a very
emotive and imperative issue that must
be addressed with the utmost haste to
allow Britain’s democracy to flourish
to the extent that it deserves. Similarly,
both the Conservative and Labour parties
promised to institute Lords reform if they
ascended to power in the 2010 election.
Their seething opposition to proposals for
Lords reform before the summer recess
only serves to accentuate the mendacity of
their promises. Contrary to the falseness of
the Conservative and Labour MPs regard-
ing Lords reform, the Liberal Democrats
were obliged to humbly retract from their
sincere pledge to deliver comprehensively
free university tuition because the Coali-
tion’s balance of power was colossally in
favour of implementing the proposals of
Lord Browne’s report on Higher Educa-
tion. However, the Labour and Conserva-
tive parties have absolutely no excuse for
withholding legislative approval for Lords
reform. Their opposition is malicious,
unnecessary and counter-productive to
the duty of politicians to revive a degree
of respect for the democratic institutions
of this country. These reactionary MPs
have evidently and irately failed to learn
from the tragically dire episode of MPs
expenses. Only through bold and decisive
action will politics rise to a more highly
esteemed profession and remove itself from
its currently inhabited malaise. One step in
the right direction would be to catapult the
House of Lords into the democratic age.
Conversely, regardless of the unequivo-
cal virtues of striving for Lords reform,
democratic progress in the Upper chamber
has been hindered by the politics of coali-
tion. Disagreement is an inescapable fact
in politics and, although it enriches debate
and provides a framework for convictions,
it can often lead to splenetic stagnation
on issues of national significance. Self-in-
terest, disproportional quarrelling, misin-
terpretation, and expediency can unfortu-
nately sometimes override the maintenance
of values or the consolidation of promises.
A tsunami of these political misdemeanours
has wrecked Nick Clegg’s plan for Lords
reform. This disaster has been intensified
by the reeling performance of the Liberal
Democrats in the polls. After years of
conscientious and determined climbing of
the ladders to political success, the Liberal
Democrats have fallen and the party’s pros-
pects have incandescently started crashing
and tumbling down the mountain range of
political fortune. The Liberal Democrats
hoped that constitutional reform would
be one of the key pillars upon which the
Liberal Democrat’s input, performance and
record of the Coalition would be judged
after the five year contract of government.
However, this pillar has crumbled and it
makes the record of government input infi-
nitely less appealing to progressive minded
people. The Liberal Democrats will have
now to face up to the fact that their record
in government will not be viewed with as
much appraisal or satisfaction after the
government’s lifetime reaches its demise.
On the other hand, the blockage of
Lords reform has been a profound eye-
opener for the populace regarding the
inherent instincts of the Conservative party.
After his success at the leadership elec-
tion, David Cameron pledged to make the
Tories an electable party. To reverse his
party’s slide into the shadows of political
wilderness, David Cameron embarked on
a modernisation process; he embraced the
battle to halt climate change and chose to
‘hug a hoodie’ in lieu of condemning the
‘hoodie’ (as previous Tories would have
done). Intriguingly, David Cameron even
pledged to continue with New Labour’s
spending plans in the successive Parliament
which were contrived on an upward trajec-
tory. Nevertheless, this meek modernisa-
tion process has been mightily uncovered
and identified as a mere self-interested
facade. However, it would be impossible
to blame the Tories comprehensively for
the failure of Lords reform. The Liberal
Democrats were remarkably naive if they
believed that House of Lords reform would
pass through Parliament without severe
criticism. It would have been historically
without precedent for the Tories to condone
a wholesale transformation of the Upper
chamber. For example, Margaret Thatcher
refused to deliberate any alteration of the
Upper chamber. Even though her mantra
expounded that effort was more important
than class, she was contentedly willing
to condone the existence of hundreds of
hereditary peers in the Upper chamber.
Nonetheless, it is understandable that this
conviction is embedded in Conservative
philosophy; after all, the Tories possess an
ingrained advantage since the vast major-
ity of hereditary peers are of a decidedly
Conservative persuasion. Conversely, New
Labour has been preaching that they indel-
ibly wear the crown of political sanctity
since they supposedly operated with the
best interests of Parliament in mind. They
refused to endeavour upon Lords reform
because cross-party consensus could not be
attained. However, this is a very indefen-
sible approach because the Tory party will
everlastingly prorogue debate as long as
possible since constitutional change is
anathema to their party’s soul.
In conclusion, the epoch of opportunity
has passed. The House of Commons has
shown that it is a shadow of its historically
zealous self. Great movements of reform
can only prevail when the principle perco-
lates into being recognised as a zeitgeist of
the times. House of Lords reform has ulti-
mately failed to prove itself to be an issue
of national consequence. The consciences
of most people are not repugnantly aroused
by the comp/osition of the House of Lords.
Unlike constitutional upheavals of the Vic-
torian period, when the masses were invig-
orated by politics to campaign vehemently
for the extension of suffrage, Lords reform
has failed to invoke a breathless sense of
passion that is often required to make revo-
lutionary leaps forward in politics. Nick
Clegg’s once visionary and commendable
character has lamentably been stained by
the plethora of sacrifices that the Liberal
Democrats have made to the Conservatives
in order to sustain the Coalition.
Nonetheless, any hope for Lords reform
has not been blown completely out of the
grasp of reformers. If a hung parliament
ensues after the next general election,
Lords reform could be back on the agenda
as one of the primary conditions that
must be instituted in order to win Liberal
Democrat favour. If Labour can step up to
this challenge, then the cause of Liberal-
ism may still yet be alight with hope. It
is now evident for all to see that, under
this Coalition, the legions of statesmen
demanding the obliteration of the Lords
have been defeated by a quivering gather-
ing of career politicians, determined to
block progress at every opportunity. The
Coalition, which was supposed to act as
the vehicle down the road to Lords reform,
has fatally crashed after an injurious
disagreement. Britain’s journey towards
eventual Lords reform will, one day, be
reached since the House of Lords simply
cannot continue in such an unsustainable
and undemocratic mould. A new aspiring
impatience is required in British politics
where brave MPs can help achieve the
heights that political vision can strive for.
The current composition of the House of
Commons is not sufficiently worthy or up
to the task. For that reason, a new order of
parliamentarians will be required before the
flowering of democracy can truly occur in
the Upper chamber, and by extension, in
British politics.
Michael Cotterill

13. 13The Regulus
DOMESTIC Politics
In the aftermath of the Tory party con-
ference we may reflect on the awe that
Boris Johnson inspired in a captivated
Tory core. The party faithful were riveted
and sat salivating at his usual ‘devil-may
care’ attitude to policy, his self-professed
Periclean elegance and of course the pol-
ished ‘Boris’ persona. Boris is heroically
revered for his triumph in capturing the
great city of London for the Tories in the
mayoral elections; delivering the Tory
party an often quoted Labour city, if but
narrowly, for the second term. Further-
more, Boris was one of the few Tories
at the conference to mention the topic
of aviation policy. Boris continues to
vehemently pronounce his abhorrence of
the idea of a third runway at Heathrow,
and has rigorously campaigned for the
brilliantly original suggestion of the so-
called ‘Boris Island.’ What Boris presents
here is an aviation plan; it may not be a
flawless one, but it is certainly credible.
Regrettably, unlike Boris, the coalition
has axiomatically failed to produce a
credible plan. Like Labour before them,
they have toyed with several proposals
before hastily retreating from all of them
and deciding on that most utilitarian of
public sector stalls: the report. Unfortu-
nately, Justine Greening’s ‘consequences
of a third runway’ report has been more
or less forgotten with her own reshuffle.
Nevertheless, in September, the govern-
ment delightedly announced that civil
servants will spend the next three years
collecting evidence on the best direction
for resolving the apparent shortage of
air traffic capacity in the south-east of
England. However, by the time the report
has reached its conclusions, the Chinese
economy will have grown by an esti-
mated 25%. The United Kingdom will
not be able to benefit from the fruits of
this growth because good old Heathrow
will simply have continued creaking at
its eye-watering 98% daily capacity. This
is intensely frustrating for British busi-
nesses because more and more contracts
are being handed to other countries that
provide infinitely superior aviation infra-
structures.
One of the key problems for Heathrow
is the residential nature of its surrounding
area. This affects flight times and this resi-
dential argument is frequently employed to
foil any manoeuvres to expand the airport.
Labour found this to its cost and, conse-
quently, lost some support in London dur-
ing Ken and Boris’ first face-off. Fortunate-
ly for Boris, his advisers have discovered
that his opposition to prospective Heathrow
expansion was instrumental in rallying sup-
port for him in London during the election
campaign. Nevertheless, the third runway
is still muted as an idea because it remains
the only tangible short-term solution to the
issue. Unfortunately, the government has
promised not to expand Heathrow, despite
the fact that George Osborne’s personal
support for a third runway is a very poorly
kept secret indeed. Heathrow equally has
been recognised as a short-term solution to
this pressing issue while the famous Boris
Island, alternatively Gatwick, Stansted or
Manston, or even a new site would provide
the long-term solution the UK desperately
needs.
The abject failure of the coalition to
articulate a credible solution to the urgent
and long overdue issue of aviation policy
has been a continual running sore through-
out its term of office. It has most disap-
pointed the Tory core, who desperate to see
a dynamic Tory government advocating
logical solutions for growth, have been
answered only with confusion and embar-
rassing coyness. The recent announcement
of a new assertion of powers independent
from Europe will excite the party faithful,
but they are longing for further decisive
moments of policy direction. One might
cite David Cameron’s ‘No to Europe’
moment in December 2011 as a lonely
example of such decisiveness which saw
him soar 4-6% in the polls. The aftermath
of this occasion saw a honeymoon period
for David Cameron, which lasted for three
months, during which time he reached the
late thirty percentile in the polls. However,
the honeymoon crashed cataclysmically
after the budget delivery on 21st March,
‘pastygate’ and other nightmares from
which the Tory party has not yet awoken.
A bold new direction on aviation could
provoke the much-needed boost in the polls
for the Tory party.
It is now common knowledge that
George Osborne failed to mention the word
“growth” in his keynote speech, and Ed
Miliband failed to mention the word “indi-
vidual”, perhaps reflecting their weakness-
es. The Labour party is still enjoying good
leads in the polls: 7% even after the Tory
conference. Furthermore, the electorate
have consistently advocated over the last 6
months that Labour would introduce better
tax policies and would be more successful
at tackling unemployment; however, they
still trail the Conservatives on the gen-
eral subject of the economy. Equally, Ed
Miliband continues to trail behind David
Cameron with regards to prime ministe-
rial preference. If Mr Miliband wants to
undermine the Tory strengths, then aviation
could be the lightening rod he needs to
scatter the Tory ranks which are profoundly
divided on this issue. Such action would
unite the electorate behind the Labour
leader, who is yet to find a solid footing in
the polls.
Aviation has time and again been a
set-aside issue for British governments
despite the extraordinary queue of investors
waiting for the green light. It is a situation
that has come to a head and will have to be
solved by a decisive move. What is clear
is that if Labour decides to exploit this
‘vulnerable flank’ of Tory economic policy,
then they may inspire the confidence in
economic credibility that ‘Milliballs’ need
to swipe the next election. If the Conserva-
tives want a second term to become a real-
ity, they have to face up to difficult issues
like aviation. If they manage to achieve
this, we may yet see the making of them in
this government.
Aviation: the new (old) battleground for the Economy
Henry Wilson

14. The Regulus14
FOREIGN Affairs
In late September, UK Prime Minister Da-
vid Cameron once again made headlines
hinting at the possibility of a referendum on
Britain’s European Union membership. The
move is the latest in a series of manoeuvres
to nudge the Conservative Party further to
the right and appease its often vociferous
backbenchers.
Indeed, the EU could scarcely be a less
popular institution at the moment. In 2011,
73% of Britons said they “tended not to
trust” the EU, while 49% held a generally
negative view of the organisation, compared
to just 13% who felt favourably. The public’s
hostility, crafted by a diet of media narrative
around supposedly endless EU regulation
and high-profile legal challenges in which
the British government has been overruled
by Brussels, has only been reinforced by the
disastrous Eurozone crisis, blamed for the
UK’s current economic woes.
And yet, with eurosceptics pointing to the
crisis as evidence of the European Project’s
inevitable failure, and arguing that now is a
better time than ever to jump ship, it is the
crisis itself that renders debate on Britain’s
membership of the Union somewhat prema-
ture. Simply put, you do not make a decision
on whether or not to buy before you have
seen the product.
The EU is an organisation which has con-
stantly developed and changed, having dealt
with the end of the Cold War, several waves
of expansion and jurisdictional dilemmas,
such as the question mark over the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus, an area of the
EU in name only.
But the Eurozone crisis presents an
unprecedented challenge requiring both
short-term action and long-term restructuring
of the European Union as a whole, obscuring
what Europe might look like ten years from
now.
The dream of a single European currency has
been all but crushed as the global financial
meltdown has exposed the faults of a system
where members lied about their solvency,
little planning was made for a widespread
recession, and enthusiasm for a united conti-
nent ignored the vast differences between the
economic characteristics of member states.
How can we salvage this dream? More
Europe.
There is now, after many months of wran-
gling, widespread consensus amongst the
governments of member states that mon-
etary union necessarily requires budgetary
coordination. The European Fiscal Compact,
signed in March 2012 notably without the
support of the more eurosceptic-minded Brit-
ish and Czech governments, represents this
progress.
However, many now believe that yet
further integration is vital if the common cur-
rency is to be saved. Last month, Prof. Paul
de Grauwe, head of the European Institute
at the London School of Economics, called
in his speech to the European Society of the
University of St Andrews for the establish-
ment of a European fiscal and budgetary
union, with a requirement for Eurozone bud-
gets to be centrally checked and approved.
His views are echoed by many scholars,
finding political support amongst a growing
number of European governments – most
notably in Angela Merkel’s administration.
This budgetary regulation certainly seems
necessary, if perhaps not desirable. The fail-
ures of the current system have demonstrated
that the differences between European
economies necessitates some degree of cen-
tral fiscal coordination, and it appears highly
likely that change similar to that proposed by
Prof. de Grauwe will take effect, driven by
German enthusiasm for fiscal responsibility.
However, the resultant level of sover-
eignty necessarily handed to Brussels would
undoubtedly be viewed with suspicion by
many member states. While Eurozone coun-
tries may feel compelled to act in panicked
defence of their economies and the future of
the Euro, non-Euro member states will be
far more reluctant to embrace the common
currency in the future.
The renewed rhetoric of a European
Federation, supported by the President of the
European Commission, Jose Manuel Bar-
roso, in his call for a “federation of nation
states” as a response to the Eurozone crisis,
will also frighten less enthusiastic par-
ticipants. The idea of the EU pulling closer
together in times of crisis may comfort those
states that have embraced the Euro and are
now worried for their future, but it makes
those who have never fully thrown in their
lot somewhat uneasy.
Despite the thinly-veiled federalist ambi-
tions of numerous notable EU architects
and the commitment to “ever closer union”
spelled out in the organisation’s found-
ing Treaty of Rome, concern for national
sovereignty has until now tempered the pace
of unification.
States such as the UK joined the EU in
an attempt to benefit from the advantages of
European unity – of which there are many –
whilst trying to prevent ‘excessive’ integra-
tion. Britain has enthusiastically supported
expansion into Eastern Europe and champi-
ons Turkey as an accession state, in the hope
that widening the EU will make it impossible
to deepen it.
With Britain, and other states such as
Denmark, the Czech Republic and Hungary
likely hostile to a politically centralised
Europe, the EU’s attempt to save itself by
gluing members closer together may leave
some feeling held to ransom unless it adopts
an approach that better recognises the vary-
ing degrees of investment that states are
prepared to contribute to integration.
One such solution is the proposal for a
‘multi-speed Europe’, first formulated by
thinkers at the end of the Cold War in an
attempt to tackle the very problem that states
like Britain worked hard to cause – the dif-
ficulty of integration coupled with rapid and
continuing expansion. The proposal would
see a core group of Eurozone states deepen
political integration and surrender more
sovereignty while newer and more reluctant
states adopt new structures at a slower rate.
In today’s political landscape this still
poses problems for euroscpetic members.
Multi-speed Europe may build upon the
system of treaty exemptions which has made
them comfortable enough with Europe up
until now – for example Denmark’s opt-out
of the Euro or the UK’s self-exclusion from
the Schengen zone, and those members of
the European Free Trade Area who seek ac-
cess to the free market short of full EU mem-
bership – but it implies that those states will
eventually fully integrate into the system.
The British government and people,
regardless of any debate on the value of the
EU, will simply not accept such a sudden
relinquishment of sovereignty.
We must, therefore, explore a ‘multi-
depth Europe’ model: the Euro states
(following any departures by structurally
unsuited economies) form a fiscal union,
share defence capabilities and form a uni-
fied foreign policy, “creating”, as Prof. de
Grauwe suggests, “a sort of country”.
And for states outside the core: continued
access to the common market, profiting from
advantages of trading with a more inte-
grated core whilst limiting the ‘surrender’
of sovereignty, continued use of the EU’s
platform for speaking to the world with a
stronger voice where foreign policy interests
converge, and continued benefit from coop-
eration to solve common problems and share
responsibilities to the benefit of populations.
The European project is plagued by a
disparity of enthusiasm amongst member
states, but by removing the expectation for
less enthusiastic states to integrate beyond
their limits, the EU can both solve the struc-
Working Towards a Multi-Speed Europe
“Multi-speed Europe may build
upon the system of treaty ex-
emptions which has made them
comfortable enough with Europe
up until now”

15. 15The Regulus
FOREIGN Affairs
The disputed Kenyan election result
of 2007 led to over 1,000 deaths,
thousands of incidences of rape, and over
600,000 people displaced, many of whom
are still unable to return to their homes and
remain at severe risk of disease and starva-
tion. This travesty followed the horrific
exploitation of tribal divisions for political
gain, leaving many to wonder—in light of
the forthcoming elections—what will be
different? Why should we not expect chaos
once again?
In the run up to the election over a
hundred people have already died in tribal
clashes near the Tana River delta and more
in riots in Mombasa and Al-Shabab. Prom-
inent politicians such as MP Ferdinand
Waititu have even publicly incited political
violence; it is evident that similar chaos is
inevitable unless urgent action is taken.
In 2007 the world stood by and watched
as Kenya imploded, but a recurrence of
this barbarity can be averted. First, world
leaders need to let Kenya know that they
are watching. In the last election, Joshua
Arap Sang allegedly organised attacks
through his radio station, Kass FM, broad-
casting the location of the Kikuyu opposi-
tion to paramilitary henchmen. He has
been charged with inciting ethnic hatred
and ordering the burning of a church filled
with ethnic Kikuyus—but nothing was
done at the time. With real global attention
such political violence would not go unno-
ticed, as it has done in the past. The simple
step of monitoring radio signals could po-
tentially allow international organisations to
save hundreds of lives. The Kenyan media
should be encouraged to report honestly and
transparently.
A second major danger is the Mungiki—
a terroristic mafia organization with wide-
spread influence and composed of young
men of the Kikuyu tribe, the largest in Ke-
nya. This group, which operates primarily
in the Mathare slums of Nairobi, is alleged
to have planned and coordinated vengeful
attacks against the Luo and Kalenjin ethnic
groups around the time of the last election.
The cause of the systemic violence
becomes clear upon appreciation of the cor-
ruption in the police and judiciary. Kenya is
currently ranked in the top 30 of the world’s
most corrupt countries and is incapable or
unwilling to stamp out the threat posed by
organised crime, and its related influences.
Since Kenyan institutions are evidently
unable to fetter such organized criminal
groups and corrupt influences stretching to
the very highest echelons of government,
any help must come from abroad. However,
I believe international scrutiny is the most
practical and most likely remedy. While by
no means a panacea, proper international in-
fluence could considerably limit the power
and effectiveness of the various criminal
regimes at play in the coming election. In-
ternational organizations such as the United
Nations, the African Union and Transpar-
ency International must put pressure on the
Kenyan government; the attention of the
United States would not be amiss either.
One simple and effective task
for foreign agencies would be to monitor
the election. By keeping a close eye on the
workings at the ballot box and recording the
events as they unfold they could help create
a safer and fairer atmosphere. International
envoys would not be expected to have
any power or position, but given that the
violence at the last election resulted from
the vast suspicion of electoral injustice, the
presence of international observers would
surely be a positive influence, and could be
a critical step to ensuring peaceful elections.
And yet, given the aforemen-
tioned problems, we must ask whether we
have a duty to help? Surely it is neither the
responsibility nor the expectation of world
powers to interfere in the internal affairs of
a sovereign state. But the world, especially
the UK, has a vested interest in Kenya.
With the recent invasion of Somalia, Kenya
now plays a significant role in the fight to
bring stability to the region, as Kenya will
be instrumental in setting up and supporting
the new Somali government, a task it will
be unable to meet if it is destabilized by
election violence. With the elections com-
ing at a key moment in the battle against
quasi-militarist Somalia, the stability of
the region would suffer enormously, were
Kenya to be rendered ineffective by internal
violence.
The UK not only has strong historical
links with Kenya, but also has a very strong
current affiliation. In 2012 over 170,000
tourists from the UK visited Kenya, and
indeed tourism is Kenya's largest foreign
exchange earner. The danger posed by the
political instability and the possibility of
mass violence could pose a substantial risk
to the economy of the entire nation.
The precedent for violence is so recent
and so clear that it is of paramount impor-
tance that international organisations and
world superpowers commit to a course of
action that will counteract this outcome:
the world must pay attention to the Kenyan
elections.
Kenya’s Violent elections: a preventable storm
Angus Millar
tural crisis at its heart and concentrate on
cooperating on matters where integration is
desirable and achievable – pooling resources
in science and research, for example, or im-
proving extra-European co-ordinated foreign
policy response. The more eurosceptic mem-
bers may shrink in horror at the thought of
surrendering sovereignty to an autonomous
or centralised institution, but they value the
forum for co-operation and co-ordinating
policies. After all, nobody is going to argue
against cancer research or speaking with an
authoritative voice on undemocratic regimes
overseas.
Europe is always going to be a reluctant
grouping of nations who diverge on precise
ambitions. Support for the EU will grow and
fall time and again, and a snap referendum
would be best cautioned against when the
nature of the institution is in constant flux.
We need to rethink Europe so that all
involved will benefit. As much as we may
have in common, we are not homogenous
and do not have the same needs and desires
when it comes to European integration. Go
too far too quickly, and states such as Britain
may feel compelled to leave.
A new approach taking account of this
can offer the solution. With the EU’s char-
acter being reforged in the meeting rooms
of Brussels and Strasbourg, and the tem-
peramental attitudes of the more recalcitrant
governments of the Union, we can only hope
that Europe’s leaders do not pull Europe
apart in attempting to mend it back together.
Aneurin Howorth

16. The Regulus16
FOREIGN Affairs
Lost in the tumult of the Arab Spring
was “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Pen-
insula’s” (AQAP) removal of Yemen’s
thirty year President Ali Saleh, and the
jihadi group’s subsequent rise to power and
control over the Abyan Governorate region
for several months. In May of this year the
Yemeni army was reported to have retaken
control of most of the territory, having
effectively removed AQAP from power.
While undoubtedly a desirable improve-
ment, such late and basic military action
has done nothing to solve the underlying
issues that made the initial overthrow pos-
sible.
Yemen, like many of its neighbours, suf-
fers from heavy youth unemployment, reli-
gious extremism, and economic stagnancy:
complex problems that Yemen would ap-
pear unable to tackle currently. While many
Arab countries suffer from the detriments
of transitional government, Yemen does so
especially, having been without a strong
civil society to begin with; the nation has
a tenuous national identity, affording the
opportunity to separatist groups to pursue
their own political ambitions.
While this may seem typical of the
region, Yemen deserves greater attention
than it has received; not from obligation,
but in self interest; the country has already
become a safe heaven for AQAP, Al Qa-
eda’s most active branch. That Yemen may
become this decade’s Afghanistan is not an
unrealistic fear. It is in the greatest interest
of the international community that Yemen
is saved from internal collapse.
The United States has begun to extend
greater levels of aid to Yemen, in an effort
to help improve a failing infrastructure,
but at is simultaneously serving to alien-
ate itself from the general population by
heightening a campaign of Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle bombing.
While this drone offensive has largely
succeeded in eliminating ranking members
of AQAP, the covert nature of the bomb-
ing campaign could easily be considered a
breach of sovereignty, considering that the
disposed president was caught lying about
the program on the United States’behalf,
promising to "continue saying the bombs
are ours, not yours" in U.S. diplomatic
cables unearthed by Wikileaks.
On June 14th 2012, a group of over one
hundred landless farmers occupied
the lands of a well-known Paraguayan
conservative businessman, Blas Riquelme,
protesting the extrajudicial stripping of
agricultural land in Canindeyú county. One
day later, the Paraguayan armed forces
entered the lands to evict the protestors,
but were victims of an ambush, causing the
deaths of 6 police and 11 farmers.
The wake of the tragedy allowed the Para-
guayan opposition to place great political
pressure on the President, Fernando Lugo.
On June 21st the Paraguayan Senate ap-
proved the motion to impeach the Presi-
dent, finding him politically responsible for
the shooting. On the next day, the Para-
guayan Senate removed him as President
with 39 votes in favour, 4 against and 2
absences. The right-wing vice-president
Federico Franco acceded the Presidency.
The legitimacy of the trial was clouded
by its speed – less than 48 hours – as
Lugo and his lawyers protested that they
were not allowed a fair trial, given only
2 hours to prepare their defense. Next,
the UNASUR expressed its support for
the ex-President, declaring, “With Lugo’s
destitution, the democratic order has been
violated.” The Uruguayan president, José
Mujica, went as far as calling the incident a
putsch. On June 29th, after a MERCOSUR
summit between the presidents of Brazil,
Argentina and Uruguay, Cristina Fernán-
dez de Kirchner announced the suspension
of Paraguay from the trade union until
free elections occurred and a legitimate
President took charge. Under the Protocol
of Ushuaia, a document signed by all the
members of the MERCOSUR which legiti-
mizes political and economic sanctions to
countries if the democratic order is broken,
Paraguay was suspended from the MER-
COSUR.
Argentina’s president after this meeting
made an announcement that further compli-
cated the issue: the MERCOSUR decided
that Venezuela could finally integrate into
the block, six years after applying for
membership. This decision came as a shock
to most South Americans, considering
that the Treaty of Asunción, the creational
document of the MERCOSUR, states in
Article 20 that “the approval of other coun-
tries to form part of the organization will
be a subject of unanimous decision by all
the original States members.” Paraguay had
been the only country to reject Venezuela’s
request because its Senate declared that
Chávez’ government was not a true democ-
racy. Although Lugo was the president, he
did not have majority in the Senate, and the
opposition joined to dismiss Venezuela’s
participation in the MERCOSUR.
This decision, made by the Presidents of
Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, was highly
controversial on political, social and juridi-
cal grounds. Was the decision legal during
Paraguay’s suspension? Was the suspen-
sion legitimate in the first place, or were
there ulterior motivations? Is a comparison
between the supposed antidemocratic
governmental functioning in Paraguay and
Chavez’ Venezuela hypocritical?
The Organization of American States sent a
committee to Paraguay to analyze the situ-
ation. In their announcement on the 22nd
of August 2012, they did not sanction Para-
guay, having found the proceedings to be
legitimate. Although the trial appeared to
be suspicious and one may not fully agree
with Lugo’s destitution, the exercise was
legal under Article 225 of the Paraguayan
Constitution.
In an interview with The Regulus, the
leader of a major Uruguayan opposition
party, Partido Colorado, and candidate
for presidency for the next elections, Dr.
Pedro Bordaberry, criticized the inclusion
of Venezuela based on its extrajudicial
characteristics: “The protocol demands
Paraguay’s approbation, so Venezuela
cannot be incorporated while Paraguay is
suspended”. He also disputes those who
consider Lugo’s destitution antidemocratic:
“The Paraguayan Constitution establishes
that the President can be removed through
a political trial by the Parliament. Nobody
Paraguay’s antidemocratic suspension from MERCOSUR
The U.S. and Yemen have moved in the
right direction by publicly acknowledging
the bombing campaign, but to ensure the
future of the volatile Yemeni government,
the international community needs to focus
its energies on improving Yemen’s infra-
structure and bolstering the allied central
government to a stable enough station to
tackle its internal tribulations.
Unrest in Yemen
Gus Tate

17. 17The Regulus
FOREIGN Affairs
argues that the formalities of the Constitu-
tion were not respected, meaning accusa-
tion and voting. It is true that the length
of the trial was short, but the Constitution
does not establish any definite period of
time.” When questioned about what would
have been the attitude of the opposition if
faced with this conflict, he answered: “The
attitude of not intervening in the internal
affairs of other countries.”
Dr. Bordaberry believes the suspension
of Paraguay and acceptance of Venezuela is
hypocritical and adds, “It is also paradoxi-
cal that Cuba has removed their ambas-
sador in Asunción for the same reason. But
I will repeat to you that I do not think that
what happened in Paraguay was antidemo-
cratic. The UN and the OAS agree with
me.” Regarding what this conflict will
mean to the future of the MERCOSUR,
he answered: “A wound that keeps it from
being what it initially was. When it was
created, the main objectives were eco-
nomical, and today, it is almost exclusively
political.”
While a reaction of this sort would be
expected from the opposition, even the
Uruguayan vice-president, Danilo Astori,
has surprisingly criticized the decision of
the President in a press release: “This is
an institutional aggression significantly
important for the MERCOSUR. It is prob-
ably the deepest wound in 21 years of this
organization.”
The Director of the Centre for Global
and Regional Studies (CEGRE), Andrés
Serbin, accuses the presidents of the
MERCOSUR of a political excess: “For the
Paraguayan suspension to be legitimate, it
should have been approved by the parlia-
ment of the countries which are members.
We could see a presidential excess, which
once again, shows the weak institutions
of the international organizations.” This
presidential excess raises another question:
What would have happened if Lugo was
right wing? The same decision in such a
scenario seems unlikely; the democratic
idealism so pompously conveyed ought, in
principle, to transcend political tendency,
but in this case, political affinity seems to
have been the deciding factor.
The major organ within the MERCO-
SUR is the CMC, which is in charge of
making the decisions in relation to the
suspension of any member. The CMC did
not make this decision, but the Presidents,
in an informal manner that failed to respect
the juridical protocols of the MERCOSUR.
In another interview with The Regulus,
a prominent Uruguayan senator, Dr. Sergio
Abreu, had harsh words for the Presidents
of the MERCOSUR: “In this region, the
conception of democracy has been reduced
to the fact that the authorities are chosen
freely by the citizens, leaving behind ele-
ments like the separation of powers, the
respect for individual rights established in
the Constitution and the freedom of speech.
The agreement about the rupture of democ-
racy in Paraguay was a political aggression
without any evidence to justify it, so that
Venezuela could be incorporated.” Regard-
ing any particular interests on incorporating
Venezuela into the MERCOSUR, Abreu
points out the fact that Chávez financially
supported the electoral campaign of the
actual Argentinean president, Cristina
Fernández. In the case of Brazil, he thinks
that Dilma Rousseff’s interest is to have
one of the greatest economic powers of
South America inside the MERCOSUR in
order to have control over them.
After the announcement about Venezu-
ela’s inclusion, most juridical experts agree
that the institution’s regulatory procedure
had been violated. Under a propagandistic
facade, the Presidents committed an illegal
usurpation of power and hypocritically
excluded Paraguay from the MERCOSUR
trade union. At times it would appear
that things have not changed much in the
Americas since their discovery in 1492:
in South America at least, the “law of the
jungle” seems still to be valid.
New technology brings new dilem-
mas. Today, robots are ubiquitous in
production lines and in hospitals, but have
yet to gain acceptance on the battlefield.
The rising use of “smart weapons” presents
new interpretations of strategic warfare and
its ethical considerations.
Military robots in active use can operate
on the ground, at sea, and in the air. They
are of all sizes; the little Sand Flea, weigh-
ing just about 5 kilos, is able to jump up
to 9 metres, making it capable of entering
through small windows or spying from
rooftops. The Falcon drone has hypersonic
abilities and has been tested at 21,000
km/h. The Guardian blogger, Andrew
Brown, refers to the drone as a “flexible
killing machine”. Other robots, like the
SUAV, can be equipped with software al-
lowing them to identify and follow a man
in a crowd.
The TALON SWORD is one such smart
weapon being tested in the battlefield,
three of which were deployed by US
forces Iraq, starting 2007. The TALON can
survive 7 days on standby before requiring
a recharge, and can transmit live visuals
to its operator up to 1,000 meters away.
The SWORDs robots have since gone out
of production, and it is believed that its
successor, the Modular Advanced Armed
Robotic System (MAARS) will fulfil the
same deployment role in the near future.
To the common citizen, the term “robot”
connotes Star Wars or the Terminator,
painting horrible images of soulless warfare
conducted from afar. However, it is impor-
tant to note that the current technology is
anything but the nightmarish fantasies we
encounter in popular fiction. Real military
robots are noisy, clumsy, and prone to dam-
age. Production is lengthy and expensive,
and the use of robots is currently very
low—only 3 SWORDS were deployed in
Iraq.
Ronald Arkin, Computing Professor
at Georgia Tech, argues that robots can
be more humane warriors than soldiers.
They do not have any human needs, and
can observe a target over long periods of
time. In addition to easing the soldiers’
responsibilities, robots should find it easier
to discriminate targets. However, we may
question this argument given that during
the last eight years CIA drone strikes have
killed over 500 civilians in Pakistan alone.
Despite the benefits related to the use
of intelligent weapons, we must not forget
the dangers; technology does not always
behave precisely as we expect. In October
2007, a South African robot killed nine and
maimed fourteen in an act of unrestricted
friendly fire, one of several examples
of armed robots running amok. When
technology fails, ethical issues regarding
responsibility arise. Should we hold the
nation state, the operator, or the robot itself
accountable for the harm? Soldiers can
be set for trial; robots can be destroyed or
reprogrammed—but is advancing technol-
ogy worth the cost in human lives?
Intelligent weapons grant huge advantag-
es on the battlefield. Casualties are lowered,
and with greater efficiency in production
and practice in operation, the costs of dam-
age will fall, and so will the cost of waging
war. While some argue that robot prolifera-
tion will lead to a state of deterrence, others
rebut that this will exacerbate mismatches
in sovereign military power. States without
the latest technology may seek to acquire
Robots in the Field; an Industrial Revolution of Warfare?
Toti Sarasola